[CESG] Updated template for WG Report to Area / Planning Table Readability etc.

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

We experienced some problems with the Planning Table Readability.

I wonder whether we really need the two columns STATUS and COMMENTS or 
whether we should simple have a single column for "Status & Comments".
In this respect it can be good checking the Rome Report how many rows had 
bot fields filled up in a "really relevant" manner and not just because 
there were holes to fill.
I know that what is "really relevant" is debatable and personal.


 In Rome the style used, despite of the common template, was not 
uniform.... so I have a few Question on planning tables: 
Shall background colour of rows be used or NOT? 
What shall the CCSDS Reference Number Contain? Is the word CCSDS Really 
needed? Is the number enough? Should we have number and type (B/M/G)? Is 
the issue required? If yes, shall be the issue to be published or the 
previous one?   Remark: larger the field, lower the readability of other 
fields.
Is the activity code to be used really clear/unabygous? 
Is the semaphore picture to be added or not?
Is copy as picture mandatory? 

Have a nice day.

Gian Paolo
this message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20161102/8a21b777/attachment.html>